[Web-SIG] My original template API proposal

Ben Bangert ben at groovie.org
Mon Feb 6 21:08:31 CET 2006

On Feb 6, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Dangoor wrote:

> I'm not keen on the wsgi_environ and set_header_callback options,
> because I don't perceive a true need for *this* API to be tied to the
> web. Of course, you need these if the template itself is going to set
> any of the headers, but there is some added complexity that results.
> TurboGears skirts this by having the Python code outside of the
> template decide what content-type (and other headers) are appropriate.

Of course, quite a few people have all mentioned conflicting 'needs'  
they perceived. This option keeps flexibility so that whatever your  
perception, if you *need* the template language to work like a WSGI  
app, you *could* do that with an API including these options.

> Since these are optional, I'm not strongly against them, but they just
> feel like they add a bit of complexity to an API that is dealing with
> a simple problem.

Many people won't ever see them, its only those of us using template  
languages where it can handle a full WSGI environment that will want  
this. Having that option enables wrapping the render function in a  
way that will be identical to a WSGI call. I think it's a good  
compromise that still lets template languages have the freedom to  
provide their own request/response API independent of the framework,  
in addition to accommodating existing template languages.

I don't see a problem with Ian's spec, as it keeps the up-front  
simple appearance, while leaving the door open to a WSGI wrapper for  
those of us that want it.


More information about the Web-SIG mailing list